“The whole dissident idea attracts a lot of crazies. And then all of a sudden, without realizing it, you've become one of them." Peter Duesberg, 2009

BUYING THIS BOOK WILL HELP TREAT PEOPLE WITH HIV IN AFRICA!!

Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy

Seeking Stories of AIDS Denialism

Have you or someone you know been harmed by AIDS Denialism? If you, or someone you care about, have been advised to stop taking HIV meds, ignore HIV test results, purchase a 'natural' cure etc., please email me.

aidsandbehavior@yahoo.com

All information will be kept confidential.

Monday, February 1, 2010

You know, the 'pathologist/toxicologist' who wrote the reinterpretation of three year old Elisa Jane Scovill's autopsy report (Eliza Jane was AIDS denialist Christine Maggiore's baby). When the LA Coroner concluded that Eliza Jane died of AIDS, it was Al-Bayati who re-examined the records and said she died of antibiotic poisoning. His conclusions were used in Maggiore's case against the LA coroner. More importantly, Al-Bayati provided Maggiore with what she needed to hear - that she was not responsible for her baby's death.

Last year when Christine Maggiore died of complications from AIDS (disseminated herpes and pneumonia), Al-Bayati did it again. He re-examined the official records and concluded that Maggiore died of – yes that is right – antibiotic poisoning.

Something you may not know about Al-Bayati is that he is a longtime associate of AIDS Denialist Professor Peter Duesberg. They go way back. Al-Bayati would have examined the blood and tissues of the mice in Duesberg’s failed NIH grant from the 1990's that would have tested poppers as the cause of AIDS. Tax payers would have paid Al-Bayati over $93,000 for his expertise. If Duesberg would have gotten that grant the total costs that would have gone to Al-Bayati's Institute of Toxicology and Environmental Health would have been $281,050.

A less known fact is that Al-Bayati is a hired gun for the defense of a lot of people accused of killing children - not just those who withhold HIV treatments. One such case involves the story of Matthew Watson, a man charged with the death of his 7 week old baby. Defense attorney Jesse Quackenbush (seriously, that is his name) hired Al-Bayati to re-examine the medical records.

Averial Buie died at age 7 weeks after she stopped breathing one night and was rushed to an emergency room where she was resuscitated and lived in a coma for 11 days. Her father, Matthew Watson, was indicted for capital murder since he was the last to hold Averial when she stopped breathing.

A meticulously detailed review of Averial's medical and hospital records, as well as postmortem slides, proves that Averial was not murdered by Matt or anyone. She died of pneumonia and as a result of medical interventions which caused all of the swelling, fractures and other injuries that have been misinterpreted as evidence of child abuse. Hospital records and x-rays show that all Averial's injuries occurred AFTER she was hospitalized. The CT scans and x-rays performed at her arrival and in the first few days following Averial's admission show NO EVIDENCE OF THE FRACTURES OR OTHER PHYSICAL INJURIES wrongly construed to use as evidence of abuse and murder.

The swelling and fractures the DA has characterized as evidence of abuse were actually caused by medical interventions, not by Averial's father. And hospital records prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even if the DA can manage to find a medical expert who will testify that Averial's injuries were caused by abuse, the fact that irrefutable records show all injuries occurred during her stay at the hospital and would only implicate hospital staff in this alleged crime.

With clear medical evidence that Averial died from pneumonia and complications caused by medical interventions, why is the DA pressing forward with charges and a trial? Find out why the DA should review the medical evidence and drop the charges against Matt Watson. Read the full medical report by pathologist Dr. Mohammed Ali AL-Bayati at this website and you be the judge.

Case for Matthew Watson/Averial Buie www.medicalveritas.com [journal of medical truth] A peer reviewed medical journal with more than two dozen MD's and PhD scientists on its review board. Dr. Al-Bayati has linked the case of Averial Buie with that of famous journalist Christine Marggiore and husband, award winning filmmaker Robin Scovill. Their daughter died and Christine was accused of giving her Aids. Dr. Al-Bayati has proven she died from other medical reasons and has used slides of their baby's lungs in comparison to Averial's lungs showing the difference between lungs with pneumonia and a normal baby's lungs. You can read her story at:justiceforej.com

Matt Watson is wrongly accused. He is a grieving father, not a cold blooded killer.Although in America we are presumed innocent until proven guilty, Matt was cruelly punished while incarcerated and awaiting release on bail. We found him stripped totally naked in an observation cell with no blanket, and only a steel cot to sleep on, and a hole in the floor for a toilet. He was kept there for over a week and observed by guards on a camera. He was not allowed to have visitors or wear any clothes including underwear. He was supposed to be issued a paper gown, but he did not receive one. Guards refused to give him his mail for over a week. There are too many incidences to mention that were cruel, in my eyes. Only because of the charge. Evidence proves Matt Watson is innocent and deserves none of the charges and cruel treatment.

The defense rested Thursday in the capital murder trial of a man accused of killing his infant daughter. Matthew Ray Watson, 29, is accused of causing injuries that led to the Aug. 17, 2004, death of 8-week-old Averial DeAn Buie. The indictment from March 2005 alleges Watson injured his daughter by striking her with an object or causing her to strike an object. Watson's defense attorney, Jesse Quackenbush of Amarillo, said in his opening statement there were many other factors besides blunt force trauma to the head that could have caused the infant's death. The jury of 11 men and one woman heard witness testimony for five days. The prosecution rested Wednesday. Closing arguments are expected to be heard next week. The state is seeking a punishment of up to life in prison.

Analysis of causes that led to subdural bleeding, skull and rib fractures, and death in the case of baby Averial Buie

Resuscitation efforts failed and the baby died at 11 days following admission. At autopsy, the medical examiner (ME) found healed skull and rib fractures, bleeding of various ages outside the skull and intracranially, and brain edema and necrosis. His microscopic examination of the H & E stained sections of the lung revealed evidence of bronchopneumonia, hyaline membranes in the alveoli, and bleeding. The ME alleged that the baby’s injuries were caused by trauma and her father was accused of killing her.

My investigation reveals that the infant suffered from acute bronchopneumonia and respiratory distress syndrome on August 6, 2004, which led to hypoxemia, severe metabolic and respiratory acidosis, hyperkalemia, loss of consciousness, respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest. Her bleeding, brain edema and necrosis, and skull and rib fractures occurred in the hospital. These injures were caused by infection and medications.

Pretty eerie. And that isn’t all.

Visiting the sham 'peer reviewed medical journal’ Medical Veritas shows how busy Al-Bayati has been claiming that the abused babies are actually dying from medical interventions, such as vaccines and antibiotics. There some other familiar faces on the Editorial Boardincluding Vaccine-autism guy Andrew J. Wakefield and AIDS denialist Andrew Maniotis.

WARNING DO NOT READ FURTHER IF WITHIN ONE HOUR OF INGESTING FOOD.

Analysis of causes that led to Evyn Vaughn's respiratory arrest, intracranial and retinal bleeding, and death

"The likely causes of Evyn’s bleeding were infections and septicemias, liver damage, vitamin K deficiency, and heparin. Hypoxia, medications, bleeding, and increased intracranial pressure (ICP) caused his brain edema and the widening of the sagittal sature. The 27 vaccines given to Evyn and treatment with corticosteroids caused significant health problems and immune depression that led to his infections. The ME’s allegation that Evyn’s death was caused by blunt trauma is not supported by medical facts."

Analysis of causes that led to baby Huda Sharif's intracranial and retinal bleeding and fractures of the left humerus and the 7th rib

Analysis of causes that led to baby Ron James Douglas' cardiopulmonary arrest, bleeding (intracranial, retinal, and pulmonary), and rib fracture.

"Ron’s intracranial bleeding developed following admission to the hospital and the likely causes of his bleed-ing are acute liver injury, treatment with epinephrine, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). In ad-dition, severe anemia contributed to his retinal bleeding. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is the likely cause of Ron’s rib fracture. The clinical and the medical studies described in this report do not support the ME’s allega-tion that Ron was killed by blunt trauma."

Analysis of causes that led to baby Ryan's hemorrhagic pneumonia, cardiac

Analysis of causes that led to baby Jackie Ray's developmental delay and intracranial bleeding

"His rate of weight gain was also reduced by 32% following vaccination as compared to the rate prior to vaccination. Vitamin K deficiency was the likely cause of the baby’s bleeding and femoral abnormalities. The allegations of Shaken Baby Syndrome and child abuse made in this case are false."

Analysis of causes that led to toddler Steven Young's respiratory arrest, intracdranial and retinal bleeding, bronchopneumonia, peritonitis, and death

"Steven suffered from septic shock and vomited after he ate and the vomit blocked his airways and caused respiratory arrest. His intracrainal and retinal bleeding, other bleeding, and minor bruises were caused by infections, liver damage, and medications. The factual causes of Steven’s illness, bleeding, and death were not revealed in court by the state and the jury convicted Armando based on a false theory."

Analysis of causes that led to Charles Fleming’s illness and

sudden death

"The commonwealth’s allegation against Diane that she poisoned her husband with methanol is not supported by medical and scientific facts, which support Diane’s innocence."

Analysis of causes that led to rib and skull fractures, sudden illness, intracranial bleeding, and death in the case of toddler Roman Pitts

"Daniel was accused of killing his stepson. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

The medical evidence presented in this report indicates that 1) the child’s cardiac and respiratory arrest, pulmonary edema, and liver damage were caused by an allergic reaction to amoxicillin; 2) his subarachnoid bleeding was caused by epinephrine, liver injury, infection, and vitamin K deficiency; 3) the separation of the coronal suture was caused by the increased intracranial pressure which resulted from bleeding and edema; 4) the causes of the healing rib fractures were vitamin K and protein deficiency; 5) the acute rib fracture was caused by CPR; and 6) Daniel is innocent."

Analysis of causes that led to rib and skull fractures adn intracranial bleeding in the case of the premature triplets Parneet, Sukhsaihaj, and Imaan

"The clinical data described in this report reveal that the triplet’s health problems were caused by vaccines. The severity of their injuries correlates with their hemoglobin levels at the time of vaccination. The subcutaneous and the intracranial bleeding resulted from protein and vitamin K deficiencies and infections. Severe anemia, vitamin K deficiency, and systemic infections are the likely causes of Parneet’s retinal bleeding. The skull fractures resulted from protein and vitamin K deficiencies. The severity of the fractures correlates with the severity of the protein and vitamin K deficiencies, the degree of the infection, and the level of the intracranial pressure."

Analysis of causes that led to baby Stryker Eoghan Burke's sudden death

"Stryker is a 55-day-old white male infant who was found dead in his bed on September 6, 2005. Based on the finding of methanol (20 mg/dL) and formic acid (23.2 mg/dL) in a blood sample taken from his heart at the time of autopsy, his parents were accused of poisoning him with methanol. My investigation reveals that the baby died as a result of severe hyponatremia."

Analysis of causes that led to bleeding, cardiac arrest, and death in the case of Baby Nadine

"My investigation of this case clearly indicates that Nadine died as a result of health problems and vitamin K deficiency that led to intracranial bleeding, edema of the brain, neurological problems, and cardiac arrest. Nadine was treated with three courses of antibiotics during her short life and had other predisposing factors for vitamin K deficiency. The evidence indicates that the intracranial bleeding occurred probably during the four weeks prior to Nadine’s death."

Did Bryant Arroyo kill baby Jordan Anthony Shenk, as alleged by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?

"Bryant Arroyo was arrested in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania on September 26, 1994 in connection with baby Jordan Anthony Shenk’s death. On May 10, 1995, he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The medical examiner testified at Arroyo’s preliminary hearing and trial that Jordan was killed by blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen, and that the manner of death was homicide. My investigation of this case clearly showed that Jordan died as a result of serious illnesses that led to his cardiac arrest and bleedings on September 25, 1994....I believe that Bryant should be released from prison immediately and compensated for his pain and suffering and time wrongly spent in prison."

And what about this journal that publishes secondary analyses of autopsy records?

Medical Veritas has published 10issues since 2004, with most of its papers coming from its editors, particularly Al-Bayati – it's featured author.

According to their self description, the journal is “The pre-eminent journal that serves as an interface between academics, scientists, researchers, medical practitioners, and concerned patients and parents. Relevant topics range from basic research, general medical practice, vaccines, treatments, bias and other conflicts of interest in research, to immunology, vaccine injury, and infectious diseases.

And here is the $281,050 question. If Duesberg would have gotten that NIH Grant, just what do you think Al-Bayati would have concluded those mice died from? My tax dollars would be on severe vitamin K depletion in the brain caused by amyl nitrate (popper) exposure.

Al-Bayati us nothing less than notorious in AIDS denialism and child maltreatment. With the company that Peter Duesberg keeps, that anyone considers him credible is indeed incredible.

140 comments:

Deaths from drug interactions are exceedingly common, and they are rarely recorded as the cause of death. Death is most often attributed the illness being treated. The medications given Christine Maggiore were contraindicated. She was critically ill, and she may not have lived without treatment, but in the end, it was the medications that killed her, not the omnipotent HIV you are clearly trying to protect. Your bias against HIV skeptics and Al Bayati is anything but scientific, and your ignorance on the topic of drug-induced death is obvious.

"...but in the end, it was the medications that killed her, not the omnipotent HIV you are clearly trying to protect. Your bias against HIV skeptics and Al Bayati is anything but scientific, and your ignorance on the topic of drug-induced death is obvious."

What evidence do you have to support this? Do you have evidence to show that her medications caused her death? If you do do you likewise have evidence to show how those medications triggered characteristic AIDS defining diseases? Can you show how these medications, for example, triggered disseminated herpes, oral candidiasis and bilateral pneumonia? Do you have any such evidence or just the say-so of Al Bayati? Please do educate us.

JTDI have been at this Denialist thing for a while now. Looking into Al-Bayati is about as low as it gets. Al-Bayati is sub-human. So is Maniotis for that matter. These guys are classic sociopaths.

I wrote this post after hearing from a mother whose ex-husband was on trial for killing their baby. She told me that Al-Bayati made thousands in fees to raise reasonable doubt about the cause of death.

I hope this post and these comments come up in prosecutors' searches of Al-Bayati.

There's plenty of proof it was Christine's medications that killer her, but it wouldn't matter. Not to any of you. You could have a dozen pathology reports right in front of you, saying the exact same thing Al Bayati's did, but you'd keep saying the same old thing. You don't care about Christine, or her baby. You care only about the AIDS paradigm not being found out.

"There's plenty of proof it was Christine's medications that killer her, but it wouldn't matter."

Well then please do present it. We are all open to real evidence.

"You could have a dozen pathology reports right in front of you, saying the exact same thing Al Bayati's did, but you'd keep saying the same old thing."

Not true. However, the pathology report would have to be written by a credible source. If real science showed she died of overdoses or anything else we would be happy to accept it. HOWEVER, when she dies with typical signs of immune suppression and her only risk factor for this is HIV then it is on you to explain how her medications' interactions miraculously manifested as AIDS-defining illnesses. Can you do it?

"You don't care about Christine, or her baby. You care only about the AIDS paradigm not being found out."

I can only speak for myself here (although I suspect it applies to Seth, Snout, Chris, JT and everyone else here) but I am not on here answering ridiculous denialists BS because I have nothing else to do or because AIDS is just a giant conspiracy and I'm hell-bent on saving it despite having no stakes in it, financial or otherwise. I do so that people that read your comments and realize how much of it is nothing more than conspiracy BS can make a better informed decision. Thanks for helping!

These cases very clearly demonstrate Al-Bayati's modus operandi. He has made a name for himself for distorting clear forensic evidence of child abuse and/or neglect to attribute the cause of death to the medical treatment of the child rather than that of the underlying injuries (or in some cases illness).

It's basically the same mantra over and over of blaming antibiotic "toxicity", corticosteroids and vaccines and (vitamin K deficiency to explain traumatic bleeding). It is utterly implausible to anyone with a basic knowledge of pharmacology or forensic medicine.

Al-Bayati works on the principle of trying to insinuate "reasonable doubt" to audiences such as juries who are unsophisticated in their understanding of medical and scientific minutiae, and may not immediately recognise what utter bullshit he is presenting.

Leslie, there is no doubt at all that Christine Maggiore died with PCP resulting from AIDS. On the other hand, I am personally not so sure of the relevance of the "herpes virus infection" that appears on her death certificate.

Until recently, you could hold small doubts as to her exact cause of death, but her denialist "friends" have unwittingly made public the whole story, even as they were frantically trying to deny it.

Back in January 09 Celia Farber posted on the net a private email written by Maggiore during her final illness. It detailed her symptoms - insidious onset of breathlessness and severe lethargy over several weeks, with an X-ray showing bilateral pneumonia, despite the evidence of clinical signs on chest ascultation. A competent physician would have a high index of suspicion of PCP on that alone, even without knowing that she had had untreated HIV infection for over 16 years (as is clearly documented by her test results shown in House of Numbers released later in 2009). She was treated futilely with three different broad spectrum antibiotics (ceftriaxone, gentamycin and azithromycin) which would cover most causes of community acquired pneumonia - but not PCP. She died nine days after starting treatment, refusing her doctor's advice to seek competent specialist treatment in hospital. I don't know why she wasn't given treatment for PCP such as cotrimoxazole. Perhaps it was because her physician was not, as Maggiore put it, "into the HIV/AIDS paradigm".

Following her death, and unknown to the coroner or the treating doctor who completed the death certificate, her family arranged for a private autopsy, completed by a properly licensed pathologist, Dr David Posey. The family have never publicly released this report - it's clear they did not like the results: Posey apparently insisted in taking the ante-mortem clinical history into account in formulating his conclusions, as any competent pathologist would. This pathology report was to be kept under wraps, but Celia Farber spilled the beans back in July on the "New Scientist" thread. She made it clear that she knew that contrary to the information on the death certificate, the family had in fact arranged for an autopsy, and she further made clear that she did not accept the results, demanding a "panoply" of pathologists' opinions before she was prepared to accept plain and evident fact. [cont. below]

Ultimately, Moe Al-Bayati was engaged to produce a whitewash of the actual report for public consumption. It consists of his usual implausible, selective and specious reasoning including pointing the finger at antibiotics and steroids, and most notably omits any salient details of Maggiore's final illness. However, he makes it quite clear that Dr Posey found and demonstrated PCP in his examination - even while Moe tries his usual predictable trick of attributing this to finding to ordinary therapeutic doses (actually pretty low doses) of corticosteroids used for a few days to try to treat her illness.

For reasons I don't fully understand, the release of Al-Bayati's whitewash was assigned to Celia Farber and Clark Baker. Farber announced it on her Dean Esmay blog post Christine Maggiore's cause of death on December 10th last year.

It went down like a lead balloon.

Even Dean Esmay himself (a close friend of Celia's and a notorious denialist) noticed that Al-Bayati's "analysis" was being presented in place of the real report by David Posey MD. The thread was deleted on December 14th and replaced by a histrionic tirade by Farber entitled “People Have Died On All Sides of the HIV Causation Belief Spectrum”. It lasted less than two days, before Farber deleted this one too.

My own guess is that Maggiore's surviving family have made it clear they want Farber to STFU. If so, I think that's good advice.

Leslie, most of us here do care about Christine's and especially her daughter's death. So much so, that we don't want to see this happen to anyone else again. Both deaths were horrible and unnecessary, and no-one deserves to suffer like that. Which is why telling the truth is much more important than self-serving denialist spin.

It’s so much bullshit. You don’t care, or you’d talk about the thousands who have died on AZT. And the estimated 100,000 that die from prescription drug use every year. But because you’re trying to protect the status and power of HIV you set all that aside and make unsubstantiated claims that Al Bayati isn’t credible. HIV, anyone informed now knows, is pretty impotent, not omnipotent as you all still believe. But because Maggiore tested positive, you fit it all neatly into a predictable little formula. Carry on though. I know you’ll never tire of your noble calling. I understand. It’s a difficult thing to admit that maybe the oh-so-noble and caring industries called Medicine and Science might have got it wrong, and kept it going wrong as it generated billions on AIDS Inc.

Leslie, Have you seen the original autopsy? If Al Bayai is correct, then why should the autopsy report not be released? Shouldn't it support everything he says? If you truly cared about facts (rather than simply supporting your preconceived beliefs) you would be out there demanding its release. That you simply swallow whole what Al Bayati claims without reading the original autopsy reveals quite clearly that you are not interested in facts. You simply want to keep believing what you currently believe and to hell with truth.

As for the rest of us that actually understand biology here is an interesting update. The 3D structure of Integrase has finally been deduced using X-Ray crystallography (which I'm sure some people will claim is all a hoax, too).

Whilst normally vociferously opposed to a lot of what the orthodox say, Snout almost makes some salient points this time, however.

The whole arguement regarding a disseminated herpes infection was implied from the death certificate listing what medications she had been placed on in her final days, one of those was acyclovir which is used to treat those infections. She was on a lot of other drugs too which are used to treat lot's of different conditions.

There has not been an official autopsy report released. We have a "review" from a toxicologist. A toxicologist is always going to lean to a toxic cause of death, similarly a virologist will always look for a virus.

Apart from a HIV+ diagnosis we don't have any of her medical history. There's also no viral loads or CD4 counts etc.

In the absence of any definitive data or report, all conclusions about her death are mere speculation both pro and con and it is dishonest for either side to make statements based on pure assumptions.

Anyone can speculate, but the arguement should be prefaced with "I think", not "It's a fact" And that is a FACT

Still waiting for some sort of credible scientific backing for your theories, Leslie. I know that the denialist movement still hasn't cottoned on to this but bleating about THE ESTABLISHMENT, attacking established scientific truths and evading any requests for credible proofs for your theories doesn't win the debate.

Poodle Stomper, interesting to read your link to 3D structure of Integrase. Interesting that the structure is of Integrase from the Protype Foamy Virus (PFV) which is "presumed" to be similar to HIV. Integrase is produced by all retrovirus' and also quite a few double stranded DNA virus' too, it's an enzyme used to cut the DNA at a point so that the virus DNA can be inserted in to the Genome. Considering that Human DNA contains about 8% of "Junk" DNA from retro virus' it must have been a common occurrence throughout our evolution. Interesting but still doesn't prove a unique exogenous retro virus called HIV.

Of course Integrase Inhibitors will be the next class of ARV's and no doubt will be used in combination with the others. And of course they will be said to be none toxic or better tolerated and specific to HIV.

I'd have though blind Freddy could figure out that a powerful combination of drugs all targetting the ability of your DNA to either replicate or allow self repair of defects is not likely to be good for you in the long run. Then again HIV has been studied in exquisite detail and these drugs are specifically targetting it's genome like a smart bomb. You take them, I certainly wouldn't.

AnonymousIntegrase Inhibitors are already here and I know a few people who are taking them. They seem well tolerated. Just the next step toward a even greater control of HIV and forestalling AIDS.More hope every day, for those not living in a denialist bubble.

"Considering that Human DNA contains about 8% of "Junk" DNA from retro virus' it must have been a common occurrence throughout our evolution. Interesting but still doesn't prove a unique exogenous retro virus called HIV."

Are you being dense on purpose or just by habit? The work on the deduction of integrase's 3D structure was not intended to "prove a unique exogenous retro virus called HIV". That has been established a long time ago. If you are interested (and I know you aren't) you can look here for a brief explanation on how we know for a fact that HIV is not endogenous.

"Of course Integrase Inhibitors will be the next class of ARV's and no doubt will be used in combination with the others. And of course they will be said to be none toxic or better tolerated and specific to HIV."

As Seth pointed out, you are a bit behind the times here. Integrase inhibitors are already in use. The deducing of the 3D structure will simply help to generate new drugs targeting it.

"I'd have though blind Freddy could figure out that a powerful combination of drugs all targetting the ability of your DNA to either replicate or allow self repair of defects is not likely to be good for you in the long run."

They don't all "target the ability of your DNA to either replicate or allow self repair of defects". There are entry inhibitors that block the binding of HIV to its receptors, protease inhibitors, and others. These are not related to DNA repair. You need to research the drugs on the market more.

Leslie, I DO have HIV and as I have stated many, many times, I have taken HIV meds for going on 16 years and I am perfectly fine. Perfectly! No humps or bumps, no elevated liver enzymes and I have found two different "cocktails" that I tolerated w/o any side effects. I know you will dismiss this real life experience just as you would dismiss the many other examples of friends who I actually know and speak with that could verify the same personal experience. However, I am sure the before and after pics of Karri Stokely is all the proof you need. Let me remind you, Karri Stokely originally stated that she, and I quote: "tolerated the meds very well."Now she has completely changed her story to claim those drugs nearly killed her. Although she took them for 11 years! So my question is this: Why do you WANT to believe these AIDS Denialists who prove time and again that they lie, lie and lie some more? Really think about that.JTD

jtdeshong: I'm delighted that you tolerate your medications well. I don't dismiss it. I am however also familiar with Karri Stokely's story, and it's clear that she didn't tolerate them well after a certain point. And she's not the only one. She's not anywhere close to being the only one. I guess the reality is that everyone is different, and it would be nice if you and the others I've seen here would have a little respect for that.

Everyone is different and antiretroviral medications are not for everyone. I know lots of people who have made informed decisions to wait or even not take meds at all. I certainly respect health decisions as an individual and private matter. The problem with Karri Stiokely is that she her decisions are neither well informed nor private. She has convinced herself (or others have convinced her) that HIV medications are poison and she tries to convince others to not take their medications.

People like Andrew Maniotis are actively engaged in telling people not to take medications.

David Rasnick tells people to 'fer git' about their HIV+ test results.

This is not about everyone being different and making informed treatment decisions. It is about deception, lying, brainwashing, and living in lala land.

"This is not about everyone being different and making informed treatment decisions. It is about deception, lying, brainwashing, and living in lala land."

Nicely put Seth you summed up the Orthodoxy well.

Leslie, HIV+ people on ARV treament are living longer (than they used to). Is that because the drugs have become more effective, or because they have become less toxic?

The characters that claim ARV's are safe are the same ones who also said 1,800mg of AZT per day was safe. They will of course say that we have learnt more since then, and in another 10 years they will say the same thing again.

Seth, are there any estimations just how many people were killed by high dose AZT? Ah, I hear you saying none, because they all succumbed to their HIV infections very conveniently.

You are so very sure of yourselves today, and yet you were previously as well, how can we have faith in you?

Perhaps some of the newer ones (drugs) are less toxic, but they are still served up in combination with the old ones and yes AZT is still on the market and a part of many regimens and PEP too. Nevirapine is still a drug of choice for Africa. Is that safe too?

Thank you Sham Watch. I know what you say about AIDS drugs to be true. I also know that AIDS is part of an enormous industry, and that it is sensible to be skeptical of the spin put out by corporate communicators.

What I don't understand is why those for whom the paradigm works need to be so venomous toward those who reject it. They too have a right to tell their stories, and to point out the facts that go counter to the ones they prefer.

That these stories are taking lives is something I don't buy Seth. It appears to me that lives are being lost with and without medications.

It boils down to retaining the right to my own judgement when it comes to what I will or will not put into my body, and respecting that right in others.

I know the people who fall ill and often die unnecessarily early because of the con job of AIDS Deniers like Null (Robert), Duesberg (Maggiore, Rex), Rasnick (Xolani), and Manniotis and Crowe are overlooked by AIDS Deniers. But their stories are now being told by loved ones.

Misinformed treatment decisions are not the same as informed treatment decisions.

You have the right to make your own judgments. The idea of this blog is to inform you about the credibility of those you may be listening to. Then it is your choice, as poorly conceived as it may be.

Personanly, I will take science and modern nmedicine over narcissists, Nessies, little green raccoons, and paranoid psychoaths. But you are right, if you choose to believe these idiots that is your choice. But you do not have the right to misinform, persuade, and lie to others.

Having a group of others in the bubble may help make you feel safe, but the expense is too great to stand by and watch it happen.

The stories of those who have died as a result of treatment are also being told by their loved ones.

But you’re absolutely right: misinformed treatment decisions are not the same as informed treatment decisions. I just happen to be convinced that the bulk of the misinformation on this issue comes from the establishment, and that the information not friendly to business has been quashed.

There’s just something about the tendency on this blog, the odd time I’ve checked in, to dismiss dissenters as “narcissists, Nessies, little green raccoons, paranoid psychopaths” etc etc etc that is not very compelling to me.

You talk about the expense of lies, the cost in human lives. What about the thousands that died from AZT therapy? Nothing will convince me that didn’t happen. The fact that the AIDS establishment has still not taken responsibility for it—that fact alone—strips them of credibility.

You've said at other blogs that you do have minimal HIV drugs side effects, so you are not entirely side effect free person. We really don't know whether you trully taking your drugs or not. Also, if the drugs work so well for you, why don't you post recent pictures of yourself to show us just how healthy you're looking? I am sorry to say this, but your knee on the pic looks rather bony.

Leslie,The fact that people are different is true. I have emphasized that time and again myself. Peolpe need to find the HIV meds that work for them. NOT just stop all together. I stopped AZT after 3 weeks. I also stopped DDI after 3 days. The DDI at that time was a powder I had to dissolve in water. It had no taste at all. It had no smell at all. I just could not get it down. So I worked with my doctor to find other meds. That is the key. The FACT that the meds have brought people back from the brink of death and prolonged their lives by 20+ years is incredibly well documented. The fact that the meds extend lives and decrease mortality far outweighs deaths caused by them. PERIOD. And the fact that AIDS Denialists bury the decreased mortality (so to speak) is reprehensible. Plain and simple.If people who do not take meds would at least check their T~Cells and begin HAART when they see their T~Cells declining precipitiously, that would be the smart move. Instead, they wake up one day and have OI's like Maggiore and find it is too late. That is the reality! No matter how much spin the Denialists put on it, like the disguisting release of the Al~Bayati report of Maggiore's autopsy INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL, shows just how deceptive and subversive they are. I can not believe that others do not see that for what it is!!Come on.JTD

jtdeshong: “The fact that the meds extend lives and decrease mortality far outweighs deaths caused by them. PERIOD.” Huh? Do you know how many have died on the meds? Being as busy as you seem to be with this, you must know Lindsey Nagel’s story, and that none of the other HIV positive children in their state diagnosed at the time she was (who all took their medications) are alive today.

And have you seen Karri Stokely today, compared to her 3 or 4 years ago? My god. If anyone is guilty of burying or ignoring mortality data it’s the establishment, not the dissenters. You must know that dissenters have offered to be a control group for comparative studies, and they’ve been refused every time? On the grounds that it wouldn’t be ethical, even though they’ve already ditched their meds, if you can fathom that logic.

It is anything but plain and simple.

And surely you know that a pathology report is an analysis and discussion of the autopsy report? Everything found in the autopsy is discussed in Al Bayati’s report. There’s no deception there. Have you read it? There’s some deception going on, or at least some gross carelessness, but it hasn’t been on the part of HIV skeptics or Al Bayati.

Why the defensiveness? Why the rage, and name-calling? Be thankful you’re alive and you tolerate your meds well. The negative emotion is bad for your health.

Leslie, history is full of horror stories regarding the activities of the drug companies.

Vioxx is a contemporary example. Manufactured by Merck, this drug passed all published clincal trials conducted by "ethical" doctors and obtained FDA approval. It was advertised and prescribed aggressively for many years. When the first reports of its dangers surfaced they were vehemently denied and more peer reviewed studies produced to disprove any dangers. Now there are class actions running and settlements have already been made by the company. It is deadly.

Evidence has now surfaced that Merck actually suppressed the known adverse events for this drug. This company is one of the larger manufacturers of anti viral medications and produces the Merck manual for physicians.

When pharmaceutical companies behave just like their tobacco counterparts did 30 years ago it is hard to place faith in them. And let's remember, tobacco companies are still in business and their concession to lung cancer is to produce low tar cigarettes. They still kill you, just a bit more slowly. And lets not forget there were many "ethical" doctors and scientists who testified and published peer reviewed papers favourable to that industry and hid behind a fabricated "consensus" at the time to do so.

Another problem is that HIV has been universally taken to be an invariably fatal condition. The list of diseases that are ascribed to this virus are mind boggling, which has made it very easy for drug companies to hide adverse events behind this "perfect storm" scenario, to peddle anything. AZT was peer reviewed and FDA approved and though older is still used, even though its toxicity is beyond doubt and has now been classed as a carcinogen by California.

There are some oddballs in both camps of this debate, on one side they have a Clark Baker, on the other a Todd DeShong, visit eithers websites and it's clear they are a sandwich short of a picnic. I worry about people who ally themselves with these types simply beacuse they are loosely in the same camp (no pun intended).

I don't question AIDS, it's real and deadly. I do question the role of HIV as a sole causative factor. I do question the honesty of drug companies and their research.

Mainly I question anyone who stands on a platform and says emphatically we are 100% right and make the most awful personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. That is fundamentalism and today we see it in Muslim and Christian extremism that has translated in to terrorism. Previously, Hitler used the very same tactics to firstly ostracise and then attempt to exterminate the Jews. If you have to attack the person and not their message, your argument is shallow, and to me deeply suspicious.

I do not promote that everyone should not take their medicine and that everything the orthodoxy has to say is rubbish, but, they are definately not 100% correct. Claiming that you are in the face of much contrary evidence places you in the same realm as a religeous zealot, not a scientist.

The head of the International Panel on Climate Change did a great thing for their argument on television last night, he admitted that the science was imprecise and that there were errors in the latest report, but the consequences of totally ignoring a possible outcome could be catastrophic.

He got my vote, and if only medicine could show less arrogance, a bit more honesty, but mostly a bit of humility and a touch of regret for their past mistakes, they'd have my vote too. Until then I will question them as is my right as a free thinking human being.

ToddAnonymous makes a good point. Your knee does look bony. You should level with these people and tell them that you are wasting away at the knee. Pretty frail patella really. Sickly. How can someone with such a bony knee be in such good shape?

Just look at the picture of Todd with me at the Harvard Denialism Symposium posted on this blog Oct 20 http://tiny.cc/yJlHJ

Have you seen the actual autopsy report? Why doesn't Al-Bayati or Maggiore's family release the actual autopsy report written by the person who actually performed the autopsy?

In the case of Eliza Jane we have been able to compare the actual autopsy with Al-Bayati's distortions and it is very clear that Al-Bayati's version is misleading, deceptive and dishonest.

Interesting that you bring up tobacco companies. Which "ethical" scientist accepted tobacco company money? The answer starts with D ends with G and has uesber in the middle.

PS Nobody is claiming that HIV science or any other brach of science is 100% correct. Nobody is claiming that ARVs are free from serious and even potentially fatal side effects. This is a silly strawman argument.

Snout: about AZT, you’re kidding, right? The reason I won’t be convinced it didn’t happen is because it did. AZT kills dividing cells everywhere in the body. It doesn’t discriminate between human DNA and viral DNA, it just kills. It was too toxic to make it as a cancer therapy. It causes ulcers and hemorrhage. It destroys immune cells of the blood and bone marrow, the very thing that HIV is supposedly destroying. AZT is the reason Lindsay Nagel’s HIV contemporaries are no longer alive.

If you’re all so desperate to see the original autopsy report, go read Al Bayati’s report; he talks about it in great detail. What you’re all trying to latch on to is HIV HIV HIV, PCP, herpes. Yes, she’d been HIV positive. Nobody’s disputing that. You’re all just pissed because Al Bayati’s saying Christine’s HIV didn’t do what HIV is supposed to do in a body, and that she died from contraindicated drug interactions.

Sham Watch is the only one here who makes any sense at all. The rest of the rants, oh my god.

LeslieReally sad.I appreciate your commenting here just the same. It is great for readers to see how the mind of an AIDS denialist works. See what you want to see. Ignore facts...live in a bubble...Even in the face of the fraud, sociopathy, subhuman behavior exhibited by Al-Bayati - the subject of this post - you still seem to believe what this sack of shit says about Christine Maggiore and her baby? I suppose you also do not vaccinate your kids on the word of Andrew Wakefield?

First of all, if you want to see pics of me, go to my blog, dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com, there are several pics there for you to drool and fantasize over.As for the knobby knee, what makes you think that is mine? UHM? Well, it is. heheeeNow, as for me and Baker both being "short a sandwich", have you seen a pic of Baker? That is one thing he has not missed in a long, long time!I think Baker substitues food for a sense of humor, personality, integrity, credibility and humanity. JTD

Leslie, as you can see it doesn't take very long for them to degrade from discourse to insult. In psychology when people put on a front it is called "masking". People are capable of hiding their true nature for only so long before they revert.

When 99% of the population sees a blue sky, it seems the sky is probably blue.

You can believe it is yellow, and that is fine. But it does not make the sky yellow.

If you really sought the truth as Sham Man says, you would not listen to the likes of Al-Bayati. AIDS Deniers see what they want to see and disregard reality.

When we call the likes of Crowe and Bauer idiots, and Duesberg, Rassnick, and Al-Bayati frauds, then we are said to just launch personal attacks because we do not have the facts.

I continue to find denialism fascinating.

By the way, what happened to Bill?Recall that Bill went on a Padian Rant. When he ran out of snips from Rethinking the Perth Virus Myth websites, I asked him to examine a review of studies (including Padian's research) that shows HIV is heterosexually transmitted. Bill was supposed to read and reply. I have banned him from posting here until he responds to the review paper, by Boily et al. Bill has tried to comment on various things and has said that he will soon report back on Boily et al. That was like 6 weeks ago. Bill is gone. Vanished. That is what happens when you ask an AIDS Denialist to actually read some science instead of the crap at Rethinking Virus Myths... whatever.

ShamWatch, how does it feel to be a hypocrite? A typical AIDS Denialist?You say to Leslie that we orthodox quickly "degrade from discourse to insult". However, it was YOU, SW, who called me an "oddball" and that sandwich/picnic analogy! I don't know about you, but hypocrisy is the worst human attribute imaginable and makes a hypocrite less than human. Do you see where you veered off into hypocrisy? 'Cause you did. And I love it. People like you prove time and again that you cannot be trusted. Think about it.JTD

99% of the world thinking it was flat for thousands of years did not make it flat.

You criticize Bill for not responding to an isolated study that supports your view, but you haven’t addressed any of the documented incontrovertible facts that support my view: AZT’s undeniable toxicity; the frequency of fatal drug reactions; that the drugs Christine was given were contraindicated; that Lindsey Nagel’s contemporaries are dead now, while she, long ago off all medications, is vibrantly well.

And surely you don’t truly believe that research isn’t heavily influenced by industry interests? Do you? Because if you do, you’re a small minority of people that hasn’t yet been disillusioned.

Why do you assume I will drool and fantasize over your pitures? You are not handsome or anything even close to that. You're not straight, are you? I couldn't see pics of you at your blog. Where do I find them? Are they recent? Sorry for asking many questions. By the way, there's nothing wrong about loving food. You, yourself look rather chubby on the pic dated back october 2009. So, the pic of your knee is misleading. How are you feeling right now, are you still looking robust?

Leslie wrote..."You criticize Bill for not responding to an isolated study that supports your view"

Leslie, just to catch you up on the science of HIV transmission... as an AIDS Denier I am sure you locked into the 1980's.

Here we are in 2010. Boily et al. is not a study....Rather a review article of the literature on heterosexual (penile-vaginal intercourse) transmission of HIV. They do not 'prove' that HIV is sexually transmitted. They review the studies that repeatedly show HIV is sexually transmitted and work through several remaining questions about variations in transmission rates.

I went ahead and posted Bill's pathetic comment so you can see that he is still with us. This is the same sort of crap he has been sending in every now and then that I do not post. Sadly Bill is unable to address the science of HIV transmission.

All Bill can do is swallow AIDS Denialist rhetoric and spit it back up. I guess you could say he is eating Crowe.

Say bye bye to Bill, you wont be hearing from him (as him) any more...Bill has proven he cannot read let alone comment on Boily et al.

I read your post about that 'doctor' Bayati. Is that guy for real or made up? He looks like a Goon. You gotta be pretty sick to do what he is doing with those kids' medical records. These people who question HIV causing AIDS must be totally nuts to keep the company of a psycho like that. I agree, it says a lot about Duesberg.

Why don't you buy into what the AIDS deniers say? It would have to be easier and feel better to believe that HIV is harmless, right?

I know the obvious answers regarding Bauer and Crowe and the other loony tunes. But what about Maggiore? Did you ever entertain her story as legit?

I just watched Karri Stokely's RA 2009 talk at RA website. I can see why her husband Joe (not Newton) turned to Denialism and helped her escape into the bubble. I can also see why people would find her story compelling. But not you. Why?

I am hearing from people who fell into denialism and got out..also family members of people who did not get out in time.

Seth: I am not an AIDS “denier.” I know that AIDS is real. Nor am I locked into the 80s. Those are wrong assumptions about me. And you’ve made them because you’re emotionally reactive to the facts I pointed out about AZT, about fatal drug interactions, and about Lindsay Nagel’s dead contemporaries.

What I’m trying to say (and what you’re clearly unable to hear), is little about AIDS has been adequately resolved. Neither of us want people to die, but the fact is that they are dying. Some from immune deficiency, some from the drugs being used to treat it. But all you seem capable of is name-calling and emotional dismissal of those you perceive to be idiots. And I don’t know if you care or not, but that tendency does nothing for your credibility.

Leslie, if you are not an AIDS Denialist, then I am sorry for making such a mistake.

I am not sure how I got the wrong idea...

"The medications given Christine Maggiore were contraindicated." "There's plenty of proof it was Christine's medications that killer her.." "Thank you Sham Watch. I know what you say about AIDS drugs to be true."

So let me be clear...

You have no question that HIV causes the systematic destruction of the immune system?

You know HIV causes AIDS and do not dispute the state of medical establishment on this fact?

You are concerned with AZT's toxicity, but recognize that it is no longer used in the doses of the 80's when people became deathly ill from the drug?

You do not dispute the life extending and quality of life enhancing value of the dozens of HIV treatments used today?

You and I agree that there remains a lot to learn about HIV, how it is transmitted, and how it causes AIDS.

Leslie, I am glad you and I agree on these issues. You are obviously no more an AIDS Denier than I am.

It’s clear that HIV has been strongly linked to AIDS, but equally clear that it doesn’t always decimate the immune system. Some people live with HIV for decades without getting sick, and some go from HIV positive back to HIV negative. But none of that means I deny the reality of AIDS.

And about AZT, I recognize that it is no longer used in the doses of the 80s, but I also recognize that it killed thousands back then, which has never been acknowledged. And it is still pretty toxic, even in the smaller doses used now. And the newer additions to the cocktail are also toxic in their own ways. Any doctor or chemist will tell you that basic little bit. And toxic comes with risk, risk that for some is far greater than risk of a positive HIV test.

I’m delighted to have been given the status of non-denier though; perhaps my comments will now be heard instead of dismissed with derision.

Here’s your narcissistic supply Seth; I find your personal attacks on Dr Al-Bayati outrageous and repulsive. Instead of acting like an adolescent with a filthy mouth, why don’t you actually refute what he says in his report? That goes for all of you - Snout, Chris Noble and Poodle Stomper.The contraindications and drug interactions outlined in said report are all widely available via the literature and the drug companies’ own full prescribing data sheets – so where do you get the brass neck to engage in such strawman bullshit libelling of Dr AL-Bayati, who presumably has the right credentials or he wouldn’t be admitted in a court of law as an “expert witness” (how many times have you “expert witness”-ed Seth?)”, without at the very least providing any evidence that he is ACTUALLY wrong?Gee – Dr Al-Bayati is a vet huh? Well I didn’t hear you screaming when your dirty bent (pro-industry to the point of successful legal prosecution) VET mate Lester Crawford was made FDA Commissioner.There Seth – enough supply? Whip out your DSM-IV-TR and get yourself some help before you self-immolate.

Why to ignore? Let Todd bring it on! Let's see his liver enzimes. Still waiting to see those recent pics of his, but even if he looks "great" on outside doesn't mean he's doing well inside. I bet ya, he's lying about not having side effects. Bull Shit!

I was under the impression that the CD4 count was a critical indicator of the immune function and that viral loads predict CD4 decline. Isn't it a fact that if your CD4 count is below 200 you have AIDS. The goalposts are yours not mine.

And as Leslie has the nerve to ask you some questions and state her doubts you categorise her immediately as a "Denialist" Do you really think that if she is sitting on the fence or doubting various issues it is productive to write her off in such an offhand matter, is that how you operate in the clinical setting Seth? 10 minutes in to the consult you throw your hands in the air and say, "that's it, you don't get my point, go away". Like most "academics" you have a poor grasp on the real world and are better with your nose in a book, which is where your sad reality lies.

Like Leslie I entered this forum initially asking questions and seeking some truth, and like leslie when I asked some questions I was written off too. So much for your statements of caring for people. It is your behaviours that push people away and strengthen the "denialists" as at least they show empathy.

Crazy is as Crazy does, as a clinical psychologist your are plain cuckoo loopy and contribute to exactly what you despise, so good on you.

I believe JT has previously stated publicly his CD4s are around 1,000 and an undetectable viral load. He would have to confirm this (I could be thinking of someone else) but it is very much a normal range.

In the end does it really matter, though? If he looks healthy, is OI free, and his markers are all good, denialists will still believe what they want to believe.Magic Johnson is another such case. He has been on AZT and then ARVs (once they became available) since he found out he had HIV. He also has CD4s of around 1000 and undetectable viral loads. Do denialists believe this? Nope, they claim he is in on the whole conspiracy and that he never takes his meds. It is typical denial.

"Here’s your narcissistic supply Seth; I find your personal attacks on Dr Al-Bayati outrageous and repulsive. Instead of acting like an adolescent with a filthy mouth, why don’t you actually refute what he says in his report? That goes for all of you - Snout, Chris Noble and Poodle Stomper."

Well let's start with the non-release of the actual autopsy. What I do know is that the drugs/whatnot she was on do not lead to the kind of OIs she had (according to her death certificate). I also know that Al-Bayati has a habit of putting a ridiculous spin on things to support the beliefs of whoever pays him.

However, since Maggiore's family is unwilling to release the actual autopsy (I wonder why) there is no way you can possibly say that Al-Bayati's spin is accurate. What is sad is that you are so eager to swallow whole what he says without even a hint of critical thinking.

Leslie,"It’s clear that HIV has been strongly linked to AIDS, but equally clear that it doesn’t always decimate the immune system."

You are correct that some people are resistant to HIV, either by resisting infection or resisting the decline in CD4 cells after infection. These are rare, however, and do not put doubt to the causality of HIV to AIDS. Rather, they illustrate the effects of host genetic diversity in the progression of diseases. This is not unique to HIV. Almost any disease imaginable has individuals whose genetic background gives them an advantage over others (for an easy-to-understand-example think of sickle-cell heterozygotes and malaria). This is a basic driving force in evolution. The problem comes when idiots with no understanding of biology claim that the few exceptions are the rule and that people need not worry about protective measures.

“Some people live with HIV for decades without getting sick, and some go from HIV positive back to HIV negative."

Again, there are in fact long term progressors. No one disputes that. There likewise have been reports of extremely rare people that are HIV+ only transiently. However, this is insanely rare and can be attributed to any number of things. Again the problem comes from people claiming that this is the norm or that it lends doubt to HIV's causality to AIDS.

"And about AZT, I recognize that it is no longer used in the doses of the 80s, but I also recognize that it killed thousands back then, which has never been acknowledged."

Perhaps you can give a credible study/reference to support this number? I don't think anyone here would be unwilling to discuss such a reference if you provide it.

"And it is still pretty toxic, even in the smaller doses used now...And toxic comes with risk, risk that for some is far greater than risk of a positive HIV test."

All drugs are toxic to an extent. Even water and oxygen can be toxic in the right amounts. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. When AZT was first released under compassionate use, it was done so because thousands were dying and this was the only drug at the time shown to be effective. Even back then, Fauci himself warned that the faster a drug was made available (in this case AZT) the more side effects one should expect due to the incompleteness of testing (which includes dose optimization). At the time, the use of AZT did prolong people's lives but only a year or so (owing to HIV's ability to mutate). While the doses of AZT were not initially optimized this was an acceptable risk because of the number of deaths. The thing to remember is that a) people were dying in very unpleasant ways (even before AZT was administered), b) only one drug was available known to help (albeit temporarily) and classical 4 phase trials would simply delay the release of this drug. Some people did have side effects and this is not contested. However, if you wish to claim that AZT killed hundreds of thousands (when studies found it temporarily extend their lives) then you should provide a credible reference if you wish to be taken seriously.

Poodle Stomper, you say the problem is idiots (like me) with no understanding of biology. Here we go again with the idiot thing, but whatever. What about those with excellent understanding of biology, and epidemiology, and virology, and chemistry ...who do question the causality of HIV because the “exceptions” are not at all rare?

When did it become foolish to question a solution that clearly isn’t working all that well for a lot of people?

You want a study showing AZT killed thousands. Right, we have studies showing the drug we thought was helping was actually killing. Duh. What we do know is this: AZT must kill 499 good T-cells to kill just a single virus-infected one. We know that people with already declining T-cells got better only temporarily, and then much worse. And then died. It’s logic that’s not difficult to follow.

On one thing we agree: the issue is one of risks and benefits. And many who have gambled that the risks of HIV are less than the risks of drug toxicity are doing just fine with their choice. So again, why the hatred?

If anyone thinks that Al-Bayati is credible they should read his highly 'creative' account of how poppers supposedly cause AIDS.

The inhalation of “poppers” at sufficient amounts causes methemoglobinemia and severe headaches, which is then treated with aspirin. The heavy use of aspirin and alcohol cause thrombocytopenia. As well, AZT and proteases inhibitors also cause thrombocytopnea, peripheral neuropathy, and bone marrow depression. Thrombocytopenia, peripheral neuropathy are classified by the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as an AIDS indicator, which is also treated with high doses of glucocorticoids that cause AIDS

Al-Bayati is a lunatic and yes the fact that so many 'skeptics' credulously parrot whatever nonsense he spouts says a lot.

Leslie,“Poodle Stomper, you say the problem is idiots (like me) with no understanding of biology.”

I did not say you specifically. However, if one takes the minority and assigns them as the rule rather than the exception, then in my opinion yes, they are idiots. Some of the host factors related to resistance to HIV are known. The CCR5∆32 mutation, for example provides resistance to infection and is exactly what one would predict from a virus using CCR5 as a co-receptor.

“What about those with excellent understanding of biology, and epidemiology, and virology, and chemistry ...who do question the causality of HIV because the “exceptions” are not at all rare?”

Very well, then please define numerically what you mean by "not all that rare" (and reference).

“When did it become foolish to question a solution that clearly isn’t working all that well for a lot of people? ”

There is nothing foolish about using science to question science. The foolishness comes from making incorrect leaps in “logic” in order to support a preconceived idea. For example, just because some people have side-effects to ARVs does not mean that ARVs cause AIDS (just an example). Nor would it mean that HIV does not cause it. Similarly, just because some people are resistant to HIV does not mean that HIV is not a dangerous virus. As I stated previously, just about any pathogen will have individuals that are, by virtue of their genetic background, resistant. There are reports of people surviving exposure to rabies with no medical intervention. This does not mean that this particular rhabdovirus does not cause rabies or that no one needs medical intervention. This would be a stupid conclusion.

“You want a study showing AZT killed thousands. Right, we have studies showing the drug we thought was helping was actually killing. Duh.”

So you don’t have one you can cite? I’m just asking so I’m 100% clear on this. A simple yes or no is fine, I don't want to get into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories or anything.

” What we do know is this: AZT must kill 499 good T-cells to kill just a single virus-infected one. ”

Please provide a credible reference for this number.

“We know that people with already declining T-cells got better only temporarily, and then much worse. And then died. It’s logic that’s not difficult to follow.”

The problem with your logic is two-fold. First, if they were dying already and AZT was going to kill them more, they wouldn’t initially have gotten better (which is what was seen). Those that were at death’s door and began treatment often experienced the Lazarus Effect. This is not something one would expect if you are taking something that is simply killing you. This is illogical. Secondly, that they began progressing again after a period of recovery was due to HIV’s adaptation. In fact, the exact mutations that impart resistance to AZT are known (example Asp67Asn, Lys70Arg, Thr215Phe/Tyr, and Lys219Gln). When these mutations were made in AZT-susceptible clones in the lab they become resistant. Viruses with these resistance mutations can be isolated from those who are no longer responding to AZT. Mutations imparting AZT resistance have also been selected for in other non-HIV viruses such as the related FIV in labs (for example, the P156S mutation). This is not unique to HIV. Are you disputing this just for HIV or for any lentivirus? Were you aware of this?

“On one thing we agree: the issue is one of risks and benefits. And many who have gambled that the risks of HIV are less than the risks of drug toxicity are doing just fine with their choice. So again, why the hatred?”

No hatred. What bugs me is the gross generalizations and illogical leaps made by denialists. For example, some people react poorly to some medication, yes. This is a fact (JT stated that he did not tolerate certain meds very well). However, unlike denialists that will claim this is proof that one must stop all meds because they are so toxic that they will kill you, JT talked intelligently with his doctor and found a regiment that worked for him. This is what people who experience side effects (to any drug, not just HIV meds) should do.

Seth, how did I become such a Rock Star here?I'm a little embarrassed *said demurely*!

My Viral Load is undetectable and most recent T~Cells 400-500 range over the past year. Good point, Seth, that these AIDS Denialists do not believe in any of the testing, especially T~Cell counts, but they wanna know mine. I have been incredibly open about my entire life, much more so than I would have had I known what I was in store for. So it is funny to me that now this "anonymous" is so interested in me providing proof. Whatever.

Also, it is quite telling that anonymous would say that even if I look healthy in my pics it does not mean I am healthy on the inside. You know how I reply? I AGREE 100%!!!! That is exactly why I have said time and again that Maggiore made a beautiful corpse!

However, the difference between me and Maggiore is I have regular blood work done. I know how my insides are doing. I know my liver enzymes are fine. I know my immune system is fine. I have my CD4 and CD8 counts done and the ratio of the two. It just so happens my insides and outsides (if you will allow such scientific lingo) are in agreement. If Maggiore would just have had a little less ego and a little more of the RIGHT blood tests done, she could have known that her immune system was depleted and done something about it!JTD

Rocking up to a weblog that discusses the phenomenon of HIV/AIDS denialism and spouting "What about [insert tired old denialist canard] " and bunging a question mark on the end does not make your post a legitimate question. Especially if you immediately follow up with "Nothing will convince me...".

No matter how hard you try to convince readers you are a genuine seeker after knowledge rather than just another denialist troll.

Secondly, "Duh. What we do know is this..." was not, the last time I looked, a legitimate way of referencing a controversial scientific claim.

"My Viral Load is undetectable and most recent T~Cells 400-500 range over the past year."

Sorry, JT. I thought you had been at around 1000. I must have been thinking of someone else. Since I have no problem admitting errors I make I also apologize to Leslie for mis-remembering his counts...my bad!

It's funny how two people can think so differently. What I find repulsive is a veterinary toxicologist using the tragic and, above all, preventable deaths of dozens of children as a springboard to further his own denialist views.

"Instead of acting like an adolescent with a filthy mouth, why don’t you actually refute what he says in his report?"

Before we get to that, let's examine what we know about Dr. Al-Bayati:

* He's a prominent member of the AIDS denialist movement, featured on the popular denialist website virusmyth.com and the author of a book released in 1999 titled 'Get All The Facts: HIV does not cause AIDS'.

* He's previously defended the parents of abused children, stating their multiple fractures were due to adverse reactions to vaccines and vitamin deficiency.

* He runs an organisation called Toxi-Health International, a company that provides services to (according to its website) 'evaluate the health effects resulting from adverse reactions to medications and/or vaccines in children and adults.'

What we can deduce from these tidbits is this: Dr. Al-Bayati is clearly a biased individual with vested ideological and financial interests in these cases, a man who's willing to say anything to prove that these children died of anything other than abuse and neglect. But enough on Dr. Al-Bayati's obvious and hilariously glaring bias, let's examine his report.

The LA County Coroner's findings can be summed up like this:' 1. Pneumocystis carinii was found in Eliza Jane’s lungs by Gomori methenamine silver staining in association with pink foamy casts in the alveoli. The lungs were also edematous (water-logged). 2. Eliza Jane was mildly neutropenic (low neutrophil–a type of white blood cell–count) and profoundly anemic (low red blood cell count) 3. Eliza Jane’s brain contained throughout its white matter with relative sparing of cortex a number of variable-sized microglial nodules characterized by multinucleate giant cells associated with moderate pallor and myelination, occasional macrophages, and and angiocentric pattern. These lesions stained positive by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the HIV core p24 protein, a finding consistent with HIV encephalitis. 4. There was atrophy of the spleen and thymus 5. There was enlargement of the liver with fatty infiltrate of the cells (steatosis) and ascites.'

Basically, everything you'd expect to find with PCP and HIV encephalitis. Not to worry though, as Dr. Al-Bayati is never afraid to charge in and save the day for denialism.His positions (from his report here http://www.justiceforej.com/Al-BayatiReport.pdf) can be accurately abridged to the following:1. No it wasn't.2. Antibiotics did it.3. No it didn't.4. Antibiotics did it.5. Antibiotics did it.

So in the end it comes down to credibility. Who are we to believe? the LA County Coroner or a man who, time and time again, has concocted fanciful lies and propagated misinformation so as to defend abusive and neglectful parents? A man who authored a book denying the HIV > AIDS link long after the issue was decided? A man who, ultimately, is willing to use these tragic deaths to promote his business and his fallacious ideologies?

I don't know about you but I think I'll stick with the Coroner on this one.

The following abstracts tend to demonstrate that Dr Al Bayati’s work is in fact based on the published literature – and his reports are always well-referenced. And I’m sure he cannot possibly have completely fabricated Christine’s medical notes or the attending physician might have something to say about that in court. The fact that you don’t “like” – and it is merely subjective on your part – what he has to say does not entitle you all to act like puerile, name-calling adolescents rather than presenting EVIDENCE to refute what he says.Ugeskr Laeger. 1998 Jun 15;160(25):3740-1.[Amyl nitrite poisoning][Article in Danish]Aagaard NK.Arhus Universitetshospital, Arhus Kommunehospital, medicinsk afdeling V.Two cases of amylnitrite poisoning are presented. In both cases, severe methaemoglobinemia developed after ingestion of approximately 10 ml of amylnitrite. When admitted to hospital, both patients were deeply cyanosed, and arterial blood samples were noticed to be chocolate brown. They were intravenously treated with methylene blue. Within one hour the condition of both patients had improved dramatically, and blood gas-samples had normalised. In cases of cyanosis with no obvious genesis, poisoning with amylnitrite should be considered.PMID: 9641062 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]J Accid Emerg Med. 1997 Sep;14(5):339-40.Saturday night blue--a case of near fatal poisoning from the abuse of amyl nitrite.Stambach T, Haire K, Soni N, Booth J.Department of Anaesthetics, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.A case of severe methaemoglobinaemia caused by the abuse of volatile nitrites is reported. The agents are commonly abused, but this complication is rare. The clinical presentation can make diagnosis difficult; however, the subsequent treatment needs to be rapid to avoid serious morbidity or mortality. This report presents the clinical picture and the background information leading to the detection and treatment of this unusual problem.PMID: 9315944 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]There are plenty more.

"The fact that you don’t “like” – and it is merely subjective on your part – what he has to say does not entitle you all to act like puerile, name-calling adolescents rather than presenting EVIDENCE to refute what he says."

Unfortunately, right now all we have to go on in Al-Bayati's past history of twisting the truth since oddly, enough, Maggiore's family refuses to release tha actual autopsy. Now why do you think that is? Until the release of the actual autopsy, there is no other conclusion that can be reached other than that they are trying to hide something they don't like and attempted to do damage control by releasing Al-Bayati's spin on it. Of course this fooled most denialists who simply swallowed everything whole because it fit in their preconceived notions but judging by the reactions elsewhere, the rest of the public sees right through their BS.

Chris, I'm glad you actually read the amyl nitrite study and said it was from DRINKING it and not sniffing. That just proves what I IMMEDIATELY knew intuitively from reading the comment by NAPA, above! I knew intuitively from having a science background as well as experiencing the duplicity of the AIDS Denialists arguements for the past 14 months. Oh, yeah, and just from having a brain!!JTD

There you go again Chris – making asinine assumptions. I did not “cut and paste” anything from one of Dr Al-Bayati’s reports but did my own Pubmed search. And oops Chris – here’s your “black swan” - a creature with which you should be familiar in your neck of the woods.“A 32 year old white woman was brought by ambulance to the emergency department. She had been found “collapsed” on the street but was alert and appropriately responsive. Sheadmitted sniffing [my emphasis] half the contents of a small bottle of amyl nitrite, drinking one unit of alcohol, and smoking cocaine…… On arrival he was agitated and uncooperative. He admitted to drinking six units of alcohol but denied other substance misuse... The patient remained well overnight and before discharge admitted he had inhaled [my emphasis] a bottle of amyl nitrite while in thenight club.” [1]

They studied 17,517 asymptomatic North American patients with H.I.V. who started drug therapy at different points. They found that among those who deferred therapy, the risk of dying was 94 percent higher than those who initiated therapy early on.

So what if someone you care about has HIV infection and delays treatment because they listened to the Duesbergers?

Well done blackswan. You've actually found a reference suggesting that inhaling large amounts of poppers can cause severe methaemoglobinemia. (I wonder whether Duesberg would accept their claim that they only inhaled poppers)

Now all you have to do is explain what methaemoglobinemia has to do with AIDS.

According to Al-Bayati they then have to take lots of aspirin which causes thombocytopenia. Then they all have to go along to their doctors who diagnose thrombocytopenia and prescribe glucocorticosteroids. Then they all have to take large doses of glucocorticosteroids which cause immune suppression.

Well firstly Seth that was a really crap citation – a proper explanation of APA citation style may be found here, but really Seth I’d expect you to know these things:http://www.liu.edu/CWIS/CWP/library/workshop/citapa.htm And when you look at the actual data, the overall death rate in the early intervention vs deferred groups was 6.57% vs 3.70%, respectively, in the lower CD4 range, and 5.09% vs 3.10%, respectively, in the higher CD4 range. The poor researchers could not provide a crude death rate per se for the deferred group because: “A crude rate of death could not be calculated for the deferred-therapy group because of data censoring to address "outside of protocol" violations.” [1] – whatever that may mean in the real world.“At the end of the study, data on the cause of death had been obtained for 16% of the patients who had died.” So for a total of 686 deaths, they had data for only 109!And what fantastic statistical analyses were used to arrive at this nearly double risk of death when the crude data demonstrates the opposite? The good old Monte Carlo simulation model software – yes, mathematical modeling of the time-honored garbage-in, garbage-out genre.Furthermore: “The majority of deaths in the early-therapy group and the deferred-therapy group were from non–AIDS-defining conditions, including hepatic, renal, and cardiovascular diseases and non–AIDS-defining cancers in both analyses.” Hmmm, I wonder what non-AIDS deaths would have been like in a real (i.e. untreated) control group?I don’t think I’ll be including this garbage in my “reasons to be cheerful” about the proven benefits of ARVs in reducing mortality thank you.1. Kitahata, M.M., et al., Effect of early versus deferred antiretroviral therapy for HIV on survival. N Engl J Med, 2009. 360(18): p. 1815-26.

Chris, the two examples blackswan quoted also admitted to misusing other substances along with amyl. I wonder two things:1) Will blackswan admit that alcohol and especially cocaine are worse for the human body than amyl?2) Does blackswan know the meaning of potentiation?JTD

Well Todd, I sure think I know what potentiate means. With drugs, one can potentiate another by a) acting on the same receptors/enzymes/hormones etc., or by blocking metabolism of the drug e.g. through the CYP450 pathway such as sub-therapeutic doses of ritonavir added to the (low bioavailability) lopinavir AKA Kaletra, or even induction of CYP450 when the metabolites are the metabolically active compounds. The only “potentiation” I can see between alcohol and amyl nitrite is hypotension and cardiovascular collapse – no oxidative potential to explain methemoglobinaemia. Cocaine is a substrate for CYP450 3A4,5,7 but as amyl nitrite does not appear to be metabolized hepatically then I can’t see the potential for potentiation there (pardon the pun) Toddy.So perhaps Todd, with your oft-stated vast scientific knowledge, you could explain to a science pleb like myself, what the potentiation might be between amyl nitrite, cocaine and alcohol.

"Cocaine is a substrate for CYP450 3A4,5,7 but as amyl nitrite does not appear to be metabolized hepatically then I can’t see the potential for potentiation there (pardon the pun) Toddy.

Actually, the use of cocaine alone could have been responsible for the methaemoglobinaemia even without the amyl nitrate as cutting agents and additives such as benzocaine often found in street cocaine can cause. Here is one example. This was also reported today, ironically enough, here

Jeez, blackswan? Then sciencepleb? It seems you are just as creative with your monikers as you are with your science knowledge. Yeah, I think I'll leave you to it. Just the fact that you state amyl "does not APPEAR to metabolized hepatically..." is enough for me to leave you to your Wikipedia education. OH, and let's not leave out your "e.g." above in which you pathetically try to draw in HIV medications into a discussion about the effects of street drugs and alcohol. Hey, did Clark Baker teach you that Sustiva works the same way as SSRIs?Hey, I have a new moniker for your next post:TIMEWASTER!JTDBTW, is it Affects or Effects? I can never keep that rule straight. Also, why don't you go off on a tangent about my misuse of that word so that you can ignore the facts of this thread?

Wow – thanks PS. For years I have argued with the paramedics when they tip me out of the dumpster into the ambulance that it is the vast amounts of water I drink that potentiates the diazepam, not the whisky I “cut” it with. Can I quote you on that next time?

Anonymous still hasn't explained what methaemoglobinaemia has got to do with AIDS.

Pseudoscience is bullshit dressed up with a veneer of scientific language and scientific references. Al-Bayati can find a few cases of severe methaemoglobinaemia caused by poppers. He might be able to find a few rare cases of thrombocytopenia caused by aspirin (I can't). It is possible that some people with thrombocytopenia will be prescribed prednisone. Very high doses of prednisone may cause immune suppression. However, the probability of the whole causal chain occurring is infinitesimally small. The causal chain also implies that aspirin causes AIDS.

Crazy back and forth on trivia that has nothing to do with HIV pathogenesis. AIDS Deniers are great at distraction... But when you ask about relevant science they are lost in sub-Duesbergian Space (better known as the Crack of Rasnick). Like Bill... he cannot even read a simple review of HIV transmission research. Such a sad and sorry lot.

Todd – does your paranoia know no bounds? – You threw “potentiation” into the thread and then got your underpants in a twist when I mentioned Kaletra. No ulterior motive Todd, no sinister undertones; it just happened to be the only example of deliberate potentiation – i.e. two compounds within the same preparation, that I could think of off the top of my head. I suppose I could have mentioned deaths due to the “potentiating” effects of itraconazole on other drugs such as moxonidine or triazolam, but then you would no doubt accuse me of pharma bashing. If the rules according to Toddy are that only illicit drugs and/or alcohol can be mentioned in the context of potentiation then you should have said so. And if you don’t know the correct usage for common words or the right spelling (e.g. disguisting) at your age no amount of tuition is going to change that.Chris – on what planet do I HAVE to explain what methaemoglobinaemia has to do with AIDS? Did I make that claim? No. Did I bring it up? No. What I did ask you to do was refute Dr Al-Bayati’s report on Christine’s autopsy scientifically. None of you have done so. All you have done is make derogatory statements.Seth – “Crazy back and forth on trivia that has nothing to do with HIV pathogenesis. AIDS Deniers are great at distraction” – I’d get that Korsakoff’s seen to if I were you. Read back over your own thread; the OT stuff about poppers, methaemoglobinaemia, potentiation and other drivel was introduced by your very own stable of lickspittles. And stop calling everyone (no exceptions) SAD – because this is clearly a severe case of projection, and every time you use this unimaginative word you only reinforce that impression.And while we’re on the subject of unimaginative words – Snout, get yourself a thesaurus because “canard” is becoming really, really old and worn.

Eatmyshorts, Al-Bayati has a past record of misrepresenting autopsy reports and the scientific literature. His tripe about parvovirus B19 being involved in Eliza Jane's death and his nonsense about poppers, methaemoglobinaemia, aspirin and corticosteroids is ample evidence of this.

There is no need to debunk Al-Bayati's nonsense when he has no credibility to start with. On the other hand there is an onus upon Al-Bayati to produce the real autopsy report written by the person who actually performed the autopsy.

eatmyshorts, the subject of the coversation was blackswan trying to be smart and pointing out just how terrible amyl nitrates are. He/she gave two examples of people being debilitated by amyl nitrates, but low and behold, there were other drugs in the mix. I merely pointed out that two other drugs in addition to amyl might have potentiated the effects, and thereby it was not just the amyl at fault. Blackswan tried to focus the reader on amyl. Do you disagree that alcohol and cocaine are bad too?

All meds/drugs have the potential to act together and cause an adverse effect. (used properly...I looked it up...because God knows I'm called retarded *fuck off Sarah Palin & fuck off harder Rush Limbaugh* because I mis spelled disguisting). For proof, eatmyshorts, why don't you drink a bottle of vodka and take SEVERAL tylenol, and after you come out of your coma, write back.JTD

JT, they are not nitrates but nitrites and amyl has not been used for a long time, today your more likely to come across iso-butyl nitrite or iso-propyl nitrite.

The problem with the nitrites is that they lead directly to intracellular expression of nitric oxide which is a key immune modulator and leads to the TH1 to TH2 switching. Any drug that has a strong nitrogen profile has this capacity, including the amphetamine class of drugs.

The opiates are straight out immune suppressors. And if you take enough they are effective life suppressors.

Cocaine does this, but not nearly so badly.

Alcohol does not do this at all, it is still toxic but in another way and indeed ethanol is classed as a poison, not nearly so bad as methanol though.

Cocaine though is strongly linked to Hepatitis C, which is another of those pesky pseudo viruses that eludes purifying, has a latency of 20 to 30 years and infects more affluent whites (who can afford cocaine) than poor black africans.

But not to worry, I strongly support your right to huff nitrites, snort cocaine, pop pills and guzzle alcohol. I also strongly suppport your right to take as many medications of any class you desire. Enjoy!

"Cocaine though is strongly linked to Hepatitis C, which is another of those pesky pseudo viruses that eludes purifying..."

This is incorrect. HepC has been purified. There are commercially available kits to purify HepC for study. There are characterized molecularclones that have been used in animal models. HepC can also be grown in cultures of cells, human or mouse, made to express the correct receptors.

Perhaps you can explain why you think HepC is a pseudo-virus. Is it the "latency period"? If so do you apply this logic to other pathogens with long asymptomatic periods, viral and bacterial or just to the ones you don't like?

Chris Noble, I never said I supported Al Bayati's views, that is your typical twist on my statement.

I also never said Alkyl Nitrites caused "AIDS", what I said, is that they are immune suppressors as are many drugs. What I object to with your single cause theory is that by ascribing all immune suppression to HIV, especially in the atypical gay risk groups in the west, and by arguing totally against drug use causing said suppression, you by ommission condone that use.

It is well documented that the use of crack cocaine in HIV+ people accellerates progression to AIDS, I think you should spend some time inside this argument explaining that refraining from using drugs when tested positive is a good health strategy as it is any time.

I call Hep C a pseudo virus because yes we are still awaiting the predicted vast death toll so latency is a factor, you are correct there.

Todd, your last post is an example of my argument, "Can you send me a stash?" even if your intent is sarcastic humour, what sort of example do you think that sets in an open forum to those that don't understand your particular quirks. Show some maturity please, Seth I'm confused that you let such posts in, it reflects badly on this blog. I realise he is one of your cyber friends, but a little censure wouldn't go astray. People actually come here looking for answers and I fail to see what he adds to anything, unless the intent here is trolling.

Anonymous, no one is claiming that alkyl nitrites are good for your health, but where did you get the idea that they cause "immune suppression" of a kind that is even remotely relevant to that seen in AIDS - a specific disease of progressive CD4+ immune cell depletion culminating in characteristic opportunistic infections and tumors?

Let's get down to tin tacks.

HIV/AIDS denialists deny that HIV causes AIDS. Instead they claim that it's most often caused by drugs.

Substance abuse is not good for you for a whole variety of reasons, but substance abusers as a group do not get AIDS-like disease - progressive CD4+ depletion culminating in the characteristic AIDS defining opportunistic diseases - unless they have HIV.

Conversely, people with HIV who are not substance abusers do get AIDS, at much the same rates as HIV positive substance abusers (with some minor variations in median latency duration).

Overall, there are a number of factors that influence how long it takes for someone with HIV to develop AIDS. Age at infection is the main factor: if you are older when you get HIV you tend to develop AIDS much quicker. If you are HIV positive and do crack regularly, chances are you'll develop AIDS a little quicker than your HIV+ friends of the same age who don't do crack. But by and large progression rates are a bit of a lottery. Crack cocaine doen't in itself cause AIDS any more than being older causes AIDS.

There is a big difference between saying "illicit drugs cause health problems" and "illicit drugs in themselves cause AIDS".

And HIV/AIDS denialists go even further - claiming that illicit drugs (and other chemicals) are the cause of AIDS - and not HIV.

That is rubbish. People with HIV get AIDS whether they do illicit drugs or not. People who don't have HIV don't get AIDS and almost never get anything that looks even remotely like AIDS - whether they do illicit drugs or not.

Waffling on about "drugs are bad" and "AIDS is bad" therefore "drugs are the cause of AIDS" is retarded logic.

But thanks for coming clean as a hep C denialist as well. Any other human pathogens you want to deny while you're at it? Hep B? Malaria? Influenza? Smallpox? Polio? Gonorrhea? Staph aureus? TB? Measles?

"I call Hep C a pseudo virus because yes we are still awaiting the predicted vast death toll so latency is a factor, you are correct there."

Let me get this straight; you doubt that the hepatitis C virus is a real virus because you aren't seeing the amount of people die that you think we should? I just want to be 100% sure on this because the "logic" is pretty ridiculous.

As for the latency period, measles can remain latent in some people and cause subacute sclerosing panencephalitis 8 years later which is often fatal. Does this latency period make you disbelieve in measles? The virus that causes chicken pox can remain "latent" in people for 40+ years and then manifest as shingles. Are you a chicken-pox denier, too? If not then you have a pretty severe double standard when it comes to viruses.

I will sum this up by asking you this; for you, is a long latency period something you consider an impossibility for all viruses or just for the ones you don't want to exist?

Then perhaps you can answer my very simple question. Are you specifically doubtful of the latency of HIV and HepC or of all viruses with similar latency? Why? After all, HIV and HepC are not related either. Why are you applying the doubt of latency periods to them?

Anonymous, what do you mean by "diseases (plural) with totally different pathogenic causes"?

HIV/AIDS is one disease, not a collection of diseases. It's a particular disease of the immune system, characterised by severe and progressive depletion of CD4+ cell mediated immune function (it has other characteristics as well, but that's the main one). It's caused by infection with a virus called HIV-1, or more rarely with HIV-2.

Did you think it was something different?

There are several other immune system diseases that are also characterised by this particular deficit, but AIDS is by far the most common one in the world today.

Ah but latency is your achilles heel Poodles, you just can't explain why something takes either 5, 10, 20 or 30 years to produce the desired effect.

Now trot out some weird genes, dodgy correlations, or a plain old, Not fully understood for me will you, there's a good boy.

Pathogenic? please explain to stupid me just exactly how it is that HIV kills T Cells. One simple little answer as it is at the heart of all HIV = AIDS dogma. After all your spruiking of infinite intelligence it should be an easy ask.

AH, HA! This is definitely Clark Baker! He is always asking "show me just one paper that shows HIV kills T~Cells"! Baker, first why don't you prove how Sustiva is addictive. That's always good for a guffaw and a belly laugh!JTD

Now try and stay on page guys, I asked how HIV kills T Cells, you've had 25 years and 300 billion in the US alone to come up with this one and it is the crucial question of pathogenisis. Until you can come up with this one all your bullshit waffling around the subject isn't worth a gnats crap. It's at the heart of latency too. I don't expect anything plausible in the near future though. Beacause......YOU DON'T KNOW.

Have a nice day, and as for you and HIV/AIDS....ignorant is as ignorant does.

Anonymous,"Ah but latency is your achilles heel Poodles, you just can't explain why something takes either 5, 10, 20 or 30 years to produce the desired effect."

You seem to be avoiding my question yet again. I will ask it again. If latency is such an issue for you that you simply can't wrap your little mind around it, do you apply this to other diseases with long latent periods (measels SSPE, Chicken Pox leading to shingles, long asymptomatic herpes simplex infections)? If you are not willing to apply it to other diseases with latency periods then why the double standard? Why does this seem too difficult for you to answer?

"Pathogenic? please explain to stupid me just exactly how it is that HIV kills T Cells. One simple little answer as it is at the heart of all HIV = AIDS dogma. After all your spruiking of infinite intelligence it should be an easy ask."

There is a short essay you can read here that covers some of the basics if you are truly interested. Alternatively, you can read it here on JT's blog as he was kind enough to make a post out of it. I figured I'd just give you the links rather than reposting it here and taking up too much space.

Anonymous,In addition, here are a few other pathogens with latency periods in the range of years or decades.

Syphilis can remain latent after secondary syphilis for 1-10 years with some cases of 50+ years before progressing to tertiary syphilis. Meningovascular syphilis occurs on average 7 years after the primary syphilis infection. Does this latency period cause you to deny Treponema pallidum’s causality in tertiary syphilis?

Mycobacterium tuberculosis can remain latent for 10 years or much longer. Does this latency period cause you to deny Mycobacterium tuberculosis’s causality in tuberculosis?

Varicella Zoster (chicken pox) can remain latent after the initial infection and yet decades later cause shingles or recurrences of chicken pox. Does this latency period cause you to deny the virus’ causality in shingles and chicken pox?

Hell, even one of the most basic viruses, the lambda bacteriophage (a virus that attacks bacteria) has a lytic phase where it damages the cells as well as a lysogenic phase where its genome simply integrates and remains latent in the host genome until it is triggered. Does this latency period cause you to deny the Lambda virus’ pathogenicity to its bacterial host?

Do you take issue with any of these having latency periods? If not, do you have a logical/scientific reason why you should for HIV or HepC? If you can't even answer this simple question with a common sense answer, why would anyone here take you seriously?

Syphilis is not caused by a virus, and it is not "latent" during the latent phase. Bad example.

Mycobacterium, again not a virus and does not remain latent, it's division cycle is about 30 days which is why it is pervasive and hard to cure with antibiotics. Also healthy immune functions keep it in check usually. Another bad example.

Chicken pox is not "latent" it causes a severe disease followed by immune activation and suppression, recurrence occur when immune function becomes compromised.

Lamda bacteriophage.......WTF? you're clutching at straws there.

It is clear Poodle Stomper you are an apologist for a crappy theory and will dredge out crap on cure to defend it.

Anonymous, go ahead and read the links provided by Poodles, and then answer back! This question has not been ignored, it has been answered very well by Poodle at the links...and elsewhere. It is just that you denialists, as always, ignore the facts or twist them. Again, read it and respond or shut up.JTD

Because you AIDS Deniers are too dumb to read anything new and directly comment on medical research, as evidenced by the impossibility of Bill addressing the facts of HIV transmission in the Boily et al. review, I will no longer post your comments here that ask 'how does HIV kill T-cells?'

You all sound so similar, I cannot tell if Anonymous is Baker, or Bill, or Geiger, Stokely, or Bauer, or Bozo. So I am afraid that all Anonymous replies will meet the same fate. I suggest you start using a nickname. Try something creative, like Joe Newton or something.

"Once again, how does HIV kill T cells?andAgain, how does HIV kill T Cells??? What is its mechanism????"

I already gave you two links to a post I wrote up on this topic. I'm not going to rewrite it as it took me a good week or so to put it together in an order I was ok with posting. Read and understand it (and the references) and then comment.

"Syphilis is not caused by a virus, and it is not "latent" during the latent phase. Bad example."

HIV and HepC are not truly latent either. They are still actively replicating during the asymptomatic phase of chronic infection. I included syphilis because you seem to have a problem with diseases that go through long outwardly asymptomatic phases. I simply wonder if you apply this to all pathogens.

"Mycobacterium, again not a virus and does not remain latent...Another bad example."

Although Essex is a scary Harvard dude, he doesn't rank as highly as a Nobelist for the disease he is recognized as discovering, unless you like cats:

Regarding a patient’s typical acquistion of “HIV,” the Nobelist, Luc Montagnier (awarded the Nobel in 2008 for his discovery of LAV (“HIV”) claimed in an interview he had recently, that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4):

Luc Montagnier:

“…I believe HIV, we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus in a few weeks, if you have a good immune system; and this is also the problem with African people; their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV, so their immune system doesn’t work well already, so it is prone, you know, allow HIV to get in and persist. So there are many ways, not the vaccine, many ways to decrease the transmission, just by simple measures of nutrition, giving anti-oxidants, proper anti-oxidants-hygiene measures, fighting the other infections.”

Interviewer:

“If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?”

Luc Montagnier:

“Yes.”

This means, according to Monti, that like all infectious diseases, the expression of that disease depends upon the defenses of the host (soil), not the pathogenicity of the seed. Is there some other way to interpret this fiction?

ZDV plus 3TC given to mothers from the start of labour until 7 days after delivery and to babies for the first 7 days of life (PETRA 'regimen B') significantly reduced HIV infection (Efficacy 42.00%; 95% CI 12.60 to 71.40) and HIV infection or death at 4 to 8 weeks (Efficacy 36.00%; 95% CI 8.56 to 63.44)

Mr. ManiotisNice to see you take time away from your busy schedule of interfering with family medical decisions (not in your family) and persuading sick people not take their medicine. I am so pleased to know that the 15 minutes you spent on my blog may have saved a life.Please, what can I do to keep you attention?

I have a hard time believing this is truly Maniotis. The grammar and spelling is too atrocious for anyone with a college education. However, Montagnier has flat out stated he was taken out of context in HoN saying "“My statement—taken out of its context in a film that glorifies the “Dissidents” and posted on Internet by a website that is searching for polemical debate". What he was talking about is very clear to anyone with even a basic knowledge of biology.

Of course denialists will continue to believe what they want and read what they want into pretty much anything.

That out of context Montagnier HoN comment will be posted for years by the denialists, just like they do with their warped, twisted version of the Padian study! We might as well just accept that they have found one more lie to add to their already overflowing repertoire.JTD

You have to be really dumb to sign as Maniotis. That is an identity you do not want to be mistaken for. It could end you up in prison.

So here we are again. Tell the AIDS Deniers to directly respond to real science or face being banned and they disappear. Billy cannot read Boily et al. on HIV transmission and Anonymous cannot respond to the ways that HIV kills T-cells.

Wow, Chris, that shit-theory webpage is pretty wild. I just about choked on my meaty bites when I saw the bit about Pasteur's supposed repudiation of his discoveries "on his deathbed". Wasn't recorded by one Lady Hope, was it?

I think it was Richard Dawkins he said he wanted his death recorded on video - not because he thought it would be significant for the world as such, but just to stop those pathetic creepy lying pseudoscientists from claiming after he died that he had a "deathbed conversion".

Now who wants to lay money on when this manure-theory or whatever it's called becomes Liam Scheff's latest woo-de-jour?

No pig-face - Pasteur did not "recant" on his deathbed according to Geison - who had access to Pasteur's notes and lab books after the last male heir died. But if you read the self-confessed Pasteurphile's stodgy book, there is plenty of evidence that the "great father of medicine" was a total cheat and a fraud - and did actually document pleomorphism in his observations on fermentation. IOW - Bechamp was RIGHT!

As for Montagnier “quoted out of context” – yeah, I keep seeing that. Isn’t that why Mr Leung posted the FULL, UNABRIDGED portion of that interview on youtube or whatever before Christmas?

As for Montagnier “quoted out of context” – yeah, I keep seeing that. Isn’t that why Mr Leung posted the FULL, UNABRIDGED portion of that interview on youtube or whatever before Christmas?

Sadly, Leung has a pretty shitty record of taking people's comments and putting them out of context in his little crockumentary. Dr.s Weiss and Constantine received the same treatment. As for posting the "FULL, UNABRIDGED portion of that interview", Snout commented quite well on that in his own blog. It is clear that what Montagnier was talking about and what denialists read into it are two very different things.

What is absolutely nauseating about you people is that while your continued noxious and malignant rants only continue to educate those who visit your “discussions” as to your sick agenda, I believe that in the near future, both public opinion, and perhaps even the law will look in horror at your long-standing, continued, loudly proclaimed grave dancing and singing catechisms and religious zealotisms that continue to malign people and their families who were misfortunate enough to have:

1. died of “AIDS,” with more than 10,800 absolute T-cell counts (Elisa Jane) and whose morbid symptoms were scrawled in advance on all the WHO warnings and amoxicillin package inserts, and how you want us to believe that AIDS, after the tragic death is now a result of having too many T-cells when death is pronounced as “no cause of death”;

2. died of “AIDS,” with no fibrosis or immune-deficient marker of any kind detected in any lymph node, and normal T-cell numbers, who had presented at autopsy with tubular necrosis and with evidence of an FDA contra-indicated adverse drug and calcium synergism (undoubtedly a new AIDS-indicator illness) (Christine M.) after spending her potentially productive adult lifetime battling against the personal and social consequences of a inconsistent “HIV-tests,” fictional Law and Order SVI T.V. shows depicting her as a child murderer (gee it was only yesterday it seems when I watched the family plant a tree at the heart-wrenching memorial service);

3. suffered the humiliation of an “HIV” diagnosis and being called a whore on the witness stand by the defense attorney and her doctor after testing 6 times negatively for “HIV” and after having consumed ARV’s for 9 years which destroyed her health permanently but who won a 2 million dollar settlement (Audrey Serrano) for a failure of being prescribed “the standard of proper medical care”;

4. been the subjects of sarcastic glee for Cornell pharma-shill professors who want to continue to smear noxious “HIV-positive”-test-increasing noxious creams of the genitals of every dark-skinned human being and non-human primates alike in what he describes before the 2006 World AIDS conference as his “Hail Mary” experiments: http://aras.ab.ca/articles/correspondence/200801-Maniotis-Moore.html;

I know that the AIDS Deniers will say I am censoring them, but I have decided not to post the other 5, yes that is right 5, long and spammy comments from Anonymous above. They are just more crap. I am not willing to let the cockroaches infest my blog. I suggest Anonymous post his rants at Rethinking AIDS where they belong.Sorry

Anonymous idiot,"died of “AIDS,” with more than 10,800 absolute T-cell counts (Elisa Jane)...the tragic death is now a result of having too many T-cells when death is pronounced as “no cause of death”"

Point of correction: 10,800 was not her "absolute T-cell" count but her total lymphocyte count. I realize you don't know the difference but total lymphocyte count includes T-cells, B lymphocytes, natural killer cells, ect... It is NOT the same thing as total T-Cell count (or CD4 T-Cell count for that matter). How anyone that professes to know more about HIV than those who actually do the research could not know this is mind-boggling. Thank you for displaying your ignorance for the world!

"died of “AIDS,” with no fibrosis or immune-deficient marker of any kind detected in any lymph node, and normal T-cell numbers, who had presented at autopsy with tubular necrosis...Christine M..."

Oh so sorry but if Maggiore had an autopsy done it was not released to the public. I wonder where it is you got this information. Could it be right from Al-Bayati's spin on it? Tell me, why would the family NOT release the actual autopsy if it truly showed that she did not die of AIDS? Thank you for showing just how easily you give your trust to those that support your ridiculous faith.

"suffered the humiliation of an “HIV” diagnosis..(Audrey Serrano) for a failure of being prescribed “the standard of proper medical care”;"

The case of Audrey Serrano was won because her doctor did not did not order the necessary tests but rather went off of her word that she had HIV. This is an unfortunate case of medical malpractice.

Anonymous does a fantastic job of showing just how readily denialists twist information to suit their own needs. Truth has no place as long as it refutes their little faith. Thank you Anonymous, for illustrating this far better than I could have.

Each year some 30 million American men undergo testing for prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme made by the prostate. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994, the P.S.A. test is the most commonly used tool for detecting prostate cancer.The test’s popularity has led to a hugely expensive public health disaster. It’s an issue I am painfully familiar with — I discovered P.S.A. in 1970. As Congress searches for ways to cut costs in our health care system, a significant savings could come from changing the way the antigen is used to screen for prostate cancer.Americans spend an enormous amount testing for prostate cancer. The annual bill for P.S.A. screening is at least $3 billion, with much of it paid for by Medicare and the Veterans Administration.

Prostate cancer may get a lot of press, but consider the numbers: American men have a 16 percent lifetime chance of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer, but only a 3 percent chance of dying from it. That’s because the majority of prostate cancers grow slowly. In other words, men lucky enough to reach old age are much more likely to die with prostate cancer than to die of it.

Even then, the test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As I’ve been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing can’t detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can’t distinguish between the two types of prostate cancer — the one that will kill you and the one that won’t. Instead, the test simply reveals how much of the prostate antigen a man has in his blood. Infections, over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen, and benign swelling of the prostate can all elevate a man’s P.S.A. levels, but none of these factors signals cancer. Men with low readings might still harbor dangerous cancers, while those with high readings might be completely healthy.

I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago would lead to such a profit-driven public health disaster. The medical community must confront reality and stop the inappropriate use of P.S.A. screening. Doing so would save billions of dollars and rescue millions of men from unnecessary, debilitating treatments.

Richard J. Ablin is a research professor of immunobiology and pathology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine and the president of the Robert Benjamin Ablin Foundation for Cancer Research.

In approving the procedure, the Food and Drug Administration relied heavily on a study that showed testing could detect 3.8 percent of prostate cancers, which was a better rate than the standard method, a digital rectal exam. Still, 3.8 percent is a small number. Nevertheless, especially in the early days of screening, men with a reading over four nanograms per milliliter were sent for painful prostate biopsies. If the biopsy showed any signs of cancer, the patient was almost always pushed into surgery, intensive radiation or other damaging treatments.The medical community is slowly turning against P.S.A. screening. Last year, The New England Journal of Medicine published results from the two largest studies of the screening procedure, one in Europe and one in the United States. The results from the American study show that over a period of 7 to 10 years, screening did not reduce the death rate in men 55 and over. The European study showed a small decline in death rates, but also found that 48 men would need to be treated to save one life. That’s 47 men who, in all likelihood, can no longer function sexually or stay out of the bathroom for long.

Numerous early screening proponents, including Thomas Stamey, a well-known Stanford University urologist, have come out against routine testing; last month, the American Cancer Society urged more caution in using the test. The American College of Preventive Medicine also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening.So why is it still used? Because drug companies continue peddling the tests and advocacy groups push “prostate cancer awareness” by encouraging men to get screened. Shamefully, the American Urological Association still recommends screening, while the National Cancer Institute is vague on the issue, stating that the evidence is unclear. The federal panel empowered to evaluate cancer screening tests, the Preventive Services Task Force, recently recommended against P.S.A. screening for men aged 75 or older. But the group has still not made a recommendation either way for younger men.

Prostate-specific antigen testing does have a place. After treatment for prostate cancer, for instance, a rapidly rising score indicates a return of the disease. And men with a family history of prostate cancer should probably get tested regularly. If their score starts skyrocketing, it could mean cancer.But these uses are limited. Testing should absolutely not be deployed to screen the entire population of men over the age of 50, the outcome pushed by those who stand to profit.

"Why don't you call up Robin Scovill and ask him....about the report you so desparately seek? A phone call to California will cost you about 89 cents for that info...."

The fact that he has allowed the Al-Bayati spin on it to be disseminated throughout the internet while not releasing the original autopsy makes me doubt very much that he would ever release the original. Why waste my 89 cents? The fact that he won't release the autopsy says more than enough.

Read Ben Goldacre and keep up with Bad Science

Don't Get Fooled Again: The Skeptic's Guide to Life by Richard Wilson

AIDS Denialism on Law & Order

If you missed the Law & Order episode 'Retro' on AIDS denialism you will want to see the 2-minute Replay. This episode portrays a woman who denies she has HIV in which she and her infant daughter both die of AIDS. Sound familiar? Click the pic to watch.

Learn More about Pseudoscience

Search This Blog

In Denying AIDS, Seth Kalichman provides a fascinating look into the thinking of those who propagate AIDS myths and the negative impact they have on our response to a deadly disease. He shows us how AIDS pseudoscience confuses the public and threatens sound public health policy. Anyone who cares about the global HIV/AIDS pandemic should read this book. Helene D. Gayle, Chair of the 2009 US Presidential Council on AIDS, CEO CARE USA, former Assistant Surgeon GeneralSeth Kalichman brilliantly uses a psychological lens to expose the wacky world that creates and maintains its presence despite the untold numbers of deaths and suffering it has caused. This book is a wake up call to policy makers and scientists, particularly in places most affected by the pandemic, that denialism must be confronted if we want to bring it under control. A must read for those who want to know more about the power and influence of pseudoscience.Michael Merson, Director, Global Health Institute at Duke University and Former Director of the World Health Organization's Global Program on AIDS.

This excellent book examines the detailed history of HIV/AIDS denialism as well as its damaging impact throughout the world. HIV/AIDS denialism and its proponents have created confusion when the clear provision of scientifically accurate communication was most needed.James Curran, Dean of the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Former Director of the CDC HIV/AIDS Division.

Seth Kalichman has superbly captured the contradictions inherent in AIDS denialism. He has deftly uncovered its religious-like fervor, its vociferous proponents and passionate opponents as well as its destructive force when legitimized by the South African President.Salim S. Abdool Karim, Member of the 2000 South African Presidential Panelon AIDS, Professor at University of KwaZulu-Natal, and Director of Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA)

Royalties from Denying AIDS are donated to buy HIV treatments in Africa